The news media has correctly described the Bush administration’s use of a “domestic spying program,” a “warrantless spying program,” “domestic eavesdropping,” and “warrantless surveillance of some U.S. citizens.”

But because the administration does not want the public to think President Bush authorized “an illegal and unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of all Americans,” they are pushing back with a new name for the program:

With congressional hearings set to begin on this issue Feb. 6, Bush kicked his administration’s new intensive public relations effort to win support for the program run by the National Security Agency. As part of that, he attempted to give it a new label – the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

The White House unveiled the name yesterday in a press release. Where would the administration get such an idea? It looks like credit goes to the right-wing internets. On New Year’s Day, the conservative news outlet Newsmax dubbed it a “terrorist surveillance program,” and a poster on RedState.org wrote last Friday, “I’m switching to ‘terrorist surveillance’ as a more appropriate moniker.”

Bush was stumped during the Q&A session of his speech today by a sophomore at Kansas State:

Q: My name is Tiffany Cooper. I’m a sophomore here at Kansas State and I was just wanting to get your comments about education. Recently 12.7 billion dollars was cut from education. I was just wondering how is that supposed to help our futures?

[snip]

Bush: Actually, I think what we did was reform the student loan program. We are not cutting money out of it.

Watch it:

Tiffany clearly confused Bush. Not only did he have to turn to his aide for advice, but he confused truthiness with the truth. The facts:

Student Loans: On Dec. 21, 2005, the Senate passed $12.7 billion in cuts to education programs — “the largest cut in student college loan programs in history.” Vice President Cheney cast the deciding vote in favor of the cuts. The bill also fixed the interest rate on student loans at 6.8 percent, “even if commercial rates are lower.” Despite Bush’s claims, students will be left off the program.

Pell Grants: Pell Grants have been frozen or cut since 2002; they are now stuck at a maximum of $4,050. In his 2000 election campaign, President Bush promised to increase the maximum Pell Grant amount to $5,100. “From 2004 to 2005, 24,000 students lost their Pell grants, according to a report pre-pared by the Congressional Research Service. This was the first drop in the number of students receiving the grants in several years; the number had been growing steadily since 1999.”

Full transcript below: Read more

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was first asked about meetings between Jack Abramoff and White House staff on January 4. On January 5, McClellan said he would have a “thorough report” on staff level contacts “very soon.”

18 days later, the stonewall continues. From today’s White House press gaggle.

Q On the Abramoff pictures. You had said last week that if we had something specific, that you would then explain further about the connections between the President and the White House and Mr. Abramoff. Can you talk about the specific circumstances surrounding these pictures, and exactly the range of contacts that Mr. Abramoff had?

MR. McCLELLAN: …Now in terms of the reports about some of these pictures, as we have previously indicated, the President did not have a personal relationship with Mr. Abramoff. But we also indicated that it should not be surprising that he might have taken some pictures with him at some of the widely attended events that we know both attended. What I indicated previously was, if you’ve got some specific issue that you need to bring to my attention, fine. But what we’re not going to do is engage in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation.

Jack Abramoff, apparently, has a different view about his relationship with Bush. From the Washingtonian:

Abramoff would tell prosecutors, if asked, that not only did he know the President, but the President knew the names of Abramoff’s children and asked about them during their meetings. At one such photo session, Bush discussed the fact that both he and Abramoff were fathers of twins.

Also, the photographs in question include one from a personal meeting between Bush, Jack Abramoff and a group of Abramoff clients. If there is nothing to hide, why not release the photos and the list of White House contacts with Abramoff?

This morning on CNN, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said that every member of Congress who was briefed on Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program agreed the program was legal and necessary:

We went to Congress. We talked to the chairman and the ranking member of the intelligence committee. We talked to the leadership, both Republican and Democrat, House and Senate. These very discussions happened three to four years ago…The fact of the matter is, everybody came to the same conclusion, that what the president was doing was legal and was necessary.

Actually, that’s not true. The Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence was briefed in 2003. He responded with a personal letter to Vice President Richard Cheney saying that he could not support the program. Sen. Rockefeller said I am “unable to evaluate, much less endorse these activities.“

President Bush’s job approval, according to a new poll from American Research Group.

Over the weekend, TIME and the Washingtonian reported they’ve seen five photos of President Bush with Jack Abramoff. But, according to TIME, the source “refused to provide the pictures for publication.”

Why would someone approach two different news magazines with pictures and then not let them publish them? It appears that someone is shopping photos of Abramoff and Bush to different news outlets, looking for a payoff. (TIME reports “they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them.”) Who would do this? The available evidence points to Jack Abramoff himself.

Consider:

– According to TIME one of the picture of Bush and Abramoff “bears Bush’s signature, perhaps made by a machine.” Who else would have a signed picture of Bush and Abramoff except Abramoff?

– The Washingtonian reports that, “Abramoff would tell prosecutors, if asked, that not only did he know the President, but the President knew the names of Abramoff’s children and asked about them during their meetings. At one such photo session, Bush discussed the fact that both he and Abramoff were fathers of twins.” How would they know that unless they’ve spoken to Abramoff or perhaps his lawyer.

– According to TIME, a sixth shot is of Bush, Hastert and Abramoff’s children. Who would retain this photo, except for Abramoff?

– U.S. News reports that “mounting legal bills forcing him [Abramoff] to sell off assets.”

If Abramoff is seeking one more payday, the White House is his enabler. TIME reports they appear to be official photos. If the White House would release the photos publicly, like it promised to do, they would be worthless.

On May 9, 2001, Bush met with 21 state legislators, Abramoff, and several of his tribal clients (including the Coushattas and the Kickapoos). Abramoff charged his clients $25,000 for arranging the meeting.

In June, the AP reported that White House spokeswoman Erin Healy denied Abramoff’s attendance at the meeting:

The White House has no record of the Coushattas or Abramoff at the May 9, 2001, meeting, spokeswoman Erin Healy said. Records show representatives from the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas and the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana met with Bush, along with 21 state legislators, Healy said.

But TIME now has a photo from the May 9 meeting, in which “Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians.”

“Three attendees who spoke to TIME recall that Abramoff was present, and three of them say that’s where the picture of Bush, Abramoff and the former Kickapoo chairman was taken.”

Lovelin Poncho, who was Coushatta tribal chairman at that time and attended the meeting, also recalls meeting with Bush for about 15 minutes. “Poncho recalls Abramoff also attended, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition he not be named.”

Once again, the White House is caught in a lie. The White House keeps records of all meetings with the President. In the face of overwhelming evidence, the administration needs to give the public facts about the meetings Abramoff attended at the White House.

This weekend on the McLaughlin group, Pat Buchanan — taking a page from Chris Matthews and Bob Schieffer — compared Osama Bin Laden to former president Bill Clinton. Watch it:

(HT: Blogenlust)

Transcript:

MCLAUGHLIN: Question is Bin Laden bluffing? Pat Buchanan.

BUCHANAN: John, I take him seriously for this reason. What Bin Laden is doing, he’s been eclipsed by Zarqawi and Zawahiri. And what he is doing, he is saying with this what Clinton said – I am relevant, I am here, I am alive.

The White House is desperate to make the controversy about Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretapping a partisan issue. Press Secretary Scott McClellan issued this statement last night:

The NSA’s terrorist surveillance program is targeted at al Qaeda communications coming into or going out of the United States…Senate Democrats continue to engage in misleading and outlandish charges about this vital tool…It defies common sense for Democrats to now claim the administration is acting outside its authority…

But it’s not a partisan issue. Some of the harshest criticism have come not from Senate Democrats but Senate Republicans:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “The FISA Act was-created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “”There is no doubt that this is inappropriate.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so…”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): “I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis…”

McClellan wants to the media to portray this as just another partisan squabble. Will they take the bait or report the facts?